Purpose

To consider and approve the recommendation of the report.

Decision

It was RESOLVED that Cabinet:

a.       Approved the realignment of Local Plan activity, transitioning from progression of a local planning authority-based East Hampshire Local Plan under the legacy planning system to engaging with the new planning system and preparation for future unitary?wide plan?making, and

b.       Noted that: 

To exercise its duties regarding plan making, the Council will have to engage with the new planning system (which will be the subject of a future report to Cabinet along with a timetable), and;

work undertaken to date will be retained and adapted to inform:

• future unitary Local Plans;

• neighbourhood planning support;

• development management decision?making; and

• monitoring of housing supply and delivery during the transition period.

Reasons for the Decision 

This paper is submitted to Cabinet to seek approval to realign the Local Plan timetable and plan-making activity to engage with the new planning system1, and to start to strategically prepare for future plan making as part of the forthcoming unitary authorities.

The report explains why, following a series of Government changes culminating in the announcement of new unitary geographies on 25 March 2026, the continued progression of a local planning authority-based East Hampshire Local Plan presents significant legal, financial, governance and practical risks, and why a transition to the new planning system represents the most responsible and proportionate course of action. In due course, this would include preparation for unitary-wide plan-making with other relevant planning authorities.

Alternative Options Considered:

Option 1:

Continue progressing the East Hampshire Local Plan under the

legacy system(not recommended)

This option would involve continuing towards Regulation 19 submission by 31

December 2026. While this would maintain continuity with previous work, it carries significant risks, including:

•        substantial further financial expenditure with an increased risk of

abortive costs;

·       unresolved strategic evidence issues, including transport and water

supply constraints;

•        a high likelihood that the plan would not be adopted before vesting day;

•        legal, procedural and political uncertainty arising from the division of

East Hampshire between two successor authorities; and

•        the risk that the plan would be rendered out of date by the revised

NPPF and emerging strategic planning arrangements.

For these reasons, this option is not considered to represent a proportionate or responsible course of action.

Option 2:

Pause plan?making activity entirely (not recommended)

This option would reduce short?term expenditure but would risk losing momentum, weakening the Council’s evidence base, and undermining support for neighbourhood planning and development management decision?making during the transition period. This option is inconsistent with national planning policy, which confirms that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led (paragraph 15, NPPF). At a meeting on 27 April 2026 with appointed Local Plan Counsel, this option was advised against.

Option 3:

Engage with the new planning system whilst preparing for plan?making of unitary?wide Local Plans (recommended)

This option involves transitioning to the progression of a district-based Local Plan under the new plan-making system. As time moves forward, discussions and jointworking with other local planning authorities and stakeholders relevant to the emerging Mid Hants and South East Unitary Authorities would enable this plan to be better aligned with emerging priorities for the respective areas.

This option:

•        avoids potentially abortive expenditure;

•        allows existing evidence and engagement to be retained and adapted;

•        reduces legal, financial and governance risk;

•        supports effective planning decision?making during the transition period; and

•        places successor authorities in a stronger position to prepare coherent, strategic Local Plans.

Officers therefore recommended Option 3 as the most proportionate, defensible and future?focused approach.